Perhaps you miss it in the response in #14 for which I was originally referring to. Bronxville happened to state:
The Catholic Church never taught that homosexuality is “nothing more than impulse to be surpress”. If you see anyone teaching this novelty, they are not Catholic in line with what the church has always taught.
Yes, this is a typical Catholic answer that many of us Protestants have come to expect. "The Catholic Church never taught.... [fill in the blank]". From Wikipedia:
Desires are nothing more then lust. As our Lord Jesus tells us that even if you look at another woman with lust in your heart you have sinned. That can be applied to any vice. The Church teaching is contrary to God's word.
Homosexuality has always been classified by the Catholic Church as one of the four sins which cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Moreover, even lusting, is considered by the Catholic Church to be a mortal (soul killing deadly) sin
I would say that you are in disagreement with Church teaching but are accurate in your interpretation of scripture.
In context: -
Article - > “By this point I had my fill of old-school CHRISTIAN TALK RADIO, especially the ANTI-CATHOLIC sentiments often expressed, and on occasion, l found myself watching CATHOLIC TELEVISION instead. I was surprised to hear ALMOST NONE OF THE BIGOTRY I HAD BEEN LISTENING TO and was amazed at the LEVEL OF KINDNESS AND RESPECT SHOWN TO EVERYONE, FRIEND OR FOE-WHILE MAINTAINING TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC STANCES.” (my emphasis)
bronxville - > EWTN does show the utmost respect to all of our fellow Christians. I can’t say whether it’s returned as I don’t listen to any other religous (sic) media tough (sic) do notice a distinct uncharitable flavor towards Catholics from some groupies on this forum.”
HarleyD - > “Rather it sounds like they cater to those who have “itching ears”. The scriptures are meant to convict the soul-not pacify it. It is to show how far short we have fallen from God’s standard and to ask Him for His grace to overcome our sinful nature. Those who show “respect” to Christians without convicting the soul are doing them, and God, a disservice. Please remember the Jews in Jeremiah’s time found their greatest comfort through the priests in the Temple of God who told the people just what they wanted to hear. Jeremiah on the other hand wanted nothing to do with it and rightfully warned of God’s wrath that was to come-especially hard on those who practice such deceit.”
bronxville - > “Agree for the most part - we differ with the methodology.”
THE END
TODAY
HarleyD - > “I THINK it is safe to say that if a homosexual finds comfort from EWTN, then EWTN gives comfort to homosexuals. This SEEMS to be simple logic.” (my emphasis)
bronxville - Thanks for giving me the opportunity to correct my spelling errors - > religous = religious; tough = though
PS: http://iol.ie/~hlii/catechism.html
In Roman Catholicism, homosexual acts are considered contrary to natural law and sinful, while homosexual desires are considered “disordered” but not themselves sinful. -——END
Wikipedia is not the Catholic Church. Moreover, this line
“while homosexual desires are considered “disordered” but not themselves sinful”, can't be found in any Catholic teaching prior to the 1960’s, it is a novelty, nothing more than newspeak, liberal double speak, which is undefined. It can mean different things to different people. No matter what any Catholic will tell you, it is not catholic (universal), moreover, it is not clear. What exactly constitutes a “homosexual desire”? Is it different than lusting? It has to be, or else it's a mortal sin. Do you see how it is meaningless.
I can perfectly understand why a God fearing conservative Protestant would think this liberal double speak “teaching” is hogwash. I agree 100%. However, it's not Catholic.